David Lee wrote:David Lim wrote:
My first claim is that "το X" where X is an adjectival clause (including prepositional clauses) cannot refer to the abstract noun corresponding to X, as I mention above.
I'm surprised by your first claim, since you are saying the "το X" construct never refers to an abstract noun, even if X is a simple adjective and not a prepositional clause. I was assuming that adjectives could be made into abstract nouns using "το X", and simply had a question whether this (supposed) rule extends to prepositional clauses as well.
Well if "το X" where X is an adjective can really refer to exactly the same abstract noun that corresponds to the semantic meaning of X, then I will accept also the possibility for when X is a prepositional phrase. But I don't think so.
David Lee wrote:Now I'm having a hard time finding why I assumed this in the first place. I scoured the internet and found one place where a grammar seems to allow for this rule. C.A.E Luschnig's An Introduction to Ancient Greek claims that "the neuter singular of an adjective (and sometimes the neuter plural) is very commonly used as an abstract noun", and lists two examples:
Thanks for searching for these! I couldn't find what you found, but I don't think it proves anything.
(1)
το καλον = the beautiful, beauty [The original meaning is "the good/beautiful", which may depending on the context imply something about "beauty" as well.]
LSJ's entry on "καλος" does also say that "τὸ καλόν" can mean "beauty", and cites
Sappho 79 ("Ἕγω δὲ φίλημ᾽ ἀβροσύναν, καὶ μοι τὸ λάμπρον ἔροσ ἀελίω καὶ τὸ κάλον λέλογχεν."). I believe that the actual meaning is "I love splendour, and to me Love has acquired the bright [shining] and the beautiful [glow] of the sun.", though it is perfectly fine to translate it using "brightness" and "beauty". It does not refer to "beauty" itself as an intrinsic property apart from the sun, but rather what is beautiful about the sun.
The second reference given in the lexicon entry seems to be incorrect, however, so I went to
search for instances of "το καλον" in Perseus, and in the first few pages of results all either unambiguously meant "that which is good/beautiful", or could be easily understood as such, like in
Aristot. Met. 1.984b. I'm not going to search the rest but you are welcome to search and tell me if you find any example that cannot mean "that which is good/beautiful". Otherwise there is no need to suppose that "το καλον" can be used to represent the abstract "beauty" itself.
(2)
το αδικον = injustice ["το αδικον" can refer to "that which is unjust" but does not refer to the abstract "injustice" itself, so Luschnig's English rendering is interpretative.]
Again, I
searched Perseus for instances of "το αδικον". One interesting description of "το αδικον" I found was at
Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1135a, which compares "the act of injustice (το αδικημα)" with "that which is unjust (το αδικον)" and specifically states that "an unjust thing (αδικον) when done becomes an act of injustice (αδικημα)".
David Lee wrote:I also found a reference to τὸ χρηστὸν in Romans 2:4, "ἀγνοῶν ὅτι τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει;".
Do you not read τὸ χρηστὸν as "kindness"?
No. It means "not knowing that
the kind [act] of God brings you into repentance", not referring to "the kindness of God" in general but a specific act of kindness of God. Furthermore, the way to say the abstract noun "kindness" is "η χρηστοτης" as in the earlier part of Rom 2:4 itself! A similar usage of "το χρηστον" is found in
Eur. Orest. 427 and
Eur. Phoen. 499. As with the others, at least the first few pages of
results from Perseus show that "το χρηστον" refers to "that which is nice/pleasant/kind/useful".